If ♦ 




o 

o 

2: 



^^**s^ 



Class 



Book 



Ej.a±...... 

nx 



Author. 



Title 



Imprint. 



16—47372-1 «PO 



A ^EW 



"SARTOR KESARTUS." 



CRITICAL ANALYSIS 



PAMPHLET ENTITLED 



"A Review of Mr. Seward's J)iplomacy.' 



By dr. syntax, JR 



• M.VUAM, TEACH YOUK SON TO RKAD AND WRITE; liltAMMAR AM> 

WItlTIXU ma'am; THINGS. WHTOH IF NOT TATGHT IN VERY KARLY 

r,ll'K. ARE SELDOM OR NEVER TAUGHT TO ANY PURPOSE; AND WITITOIT 
THE KNOWLEDGE OP WHICH, NO SUPERSTRUCTURE OP I.EARXINt; OK 
KNOAVLBDGK CAN BE BUILT." Dt. JohuSOJl.. 



MARO H, 1862. 



A NEW 



U 



SARTOR RESARTUS.' 



CRITICAL ANALYSIS 



PAMPHLET E^^TITLED 




"A Review of Mr. Seward's Diplomacy." 

By DE. syntax, jXJ..^^*J^ 



" MADAM, TEACH YOUR SON TO READ AND WRITE ; GRAMMAR AND 

WRITING ma'am; THINGS, WHICH IF NOT TAUGHT IN VERY EARLY 

LIFE, ARE SELDOM OR NEVER TAUGHT TO ANY PURPOSE ; AND WITHOUT 
THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH, NO SUPERSTRUCTURE OF LEARNING OR 
KNOWLEDGE CAN BE BUILT." — Dr. JolinSOU. 



MARCH, 186S. 



i 






A^^" 



Arba Biodget 






INTEODUCTION. 



This pamphlet has ah'eady been reviewed, and 
that not in the kindliest spirit. 

Its authorship is universally attributed to a 
prominent member of the Philadelphia Bar — who 
was charged with an important foreign mission, 
under the late Administration, and who has ever 
since been supposed to enjoy the especial confi- 
dence of its Chief. 

It is not our purpose to discuss, as has already 
been done so freely, the loyalty of this gentleman — 
s:ave so far as it may legitimately be questioned 
from the language and spirit of his pamphlet. 

Most especially shall we avoid all such offensive 
allusions to his ancestry, as some of his critics have 
delighted to indulge in. Whether those imputa- 
tations be well or ill founded, is not a matter 
having the slightest relation to the subject before 
us at this time. 



So far from raking among the ashes of the past 
for such offensive memorials, we would rather most 
tenderly recal the obligations that our own com- 
munity, and might we not add the community of 
literature, are under, to one, nearly connected with 
this writer, who has but recently passed away from 
amongst us; one who adorned society by the 
modest worth of his character, and its happy 
blending of literary, social and christian graces. 

We shall endeavor to, review this pamphlet 
fairly; and if, in the discharge of this duty, it 
becomes necessary to speak plainly, we hope to 
do so without offence. 

It is no part of that duty to attempt any vindi- 
cation, in this essay, of President Lincoln or Mr. 
Seward. They need none. The full pubUcations 
of the British diplomatic papers, and the universal 
tone of the Foreign Correspondence, of latter time, 
show conclusively that the Secretary is esteemed, 
in Europe, to be an able, shrewd, and successful 
statesman. As for Mr. Lincoln, we can best illus- 
trate our opinion of him by a paragraph from 
Sydney Smith: 

" You spend a good deal of ink," — said he, in his 
admirable letters of Peter Plymley, — "about the 
character of our present Prime Minister. Grant 



you all that you write ; I say, I fear he will ruin 
Ireland — and pursue a policy destructive to the 
true interests of his country : and you tell me he 
is faithful to Mrs. Perceval, and kind to the master 
Perceval s. 

These are undoubtedly the first qualifications to 
be looked to, in a time of the most serious public 
danger. But somehow or other, if public and 
private virtues must always be incompatible, I 
should prefer that he interfered with the domestic 
happiness of Wood or Cockell — owed for the veal 
of the preceding year — whipped his boys — and 
saved his country." 

We believe that Mr. Lincoln has saved his 
country; and that he will occupy, in the temple 
of our Nation's history, a place so lofty that but 
one name shall be written above his. He can well 
afford to smile contemptuously at all anonymous 
slurs on " The President's Social Meridian," or 
sneers at his "homely style" and "bungling 
syntax." 

When we have completed our task, we think 
our readers will agree with us, that were the salva- 
tion of our country dependant on its observance of 
the laws of Grammar, or the rules of Rhetoric, and 
were fidelity to these, a test of individual loyalty, 



it would become immediately necessary, out of a 
due regard for the public safety, to send this 
pretentious and arrogant Pamphleteer to Fort 
Lafayette. 

DR SYNTAX, JE 
March, 1862. 



REVIEW. 



This Critic comes before the Public with no ordinary 
pretensions. 

He professes to be clad in the impenetrable armor of 
"candor and the spirit of frankness;" an'd proclaims, 
with, a flourish of trumpets that he comes "In the name 
of American Scholarship and taste," to snatch away 
the " literary and political trophies" of the Secretary of 
State; and to dispute his claim ''to^be considered as a 
representative of American Scholars, or his crude and 
tawdry effusions, as fair specimens of American writing." 
He speaks contemptuously of the "bungling rhetoric," 
the "awkward grammar," the "grotesque platitudes" of 
Mr. Seward ;" the " homely style" and " clumsy syntax 
of the President, characteristic of the man and his social 
meridian;" the "ineffable trash" of Minister Clay; the 
" acrid dogmatism" of the Minister to Holland ; the " bad 
English" of Minister Adams; and in short of the "terri- 
ble deterioration" of all the "State Papers" and the 
" debased tone" of the " Public Documents." 

Our first impulse, on glancing at all these imposing 
demonstrations, was humbly to exclaim like the poor 
Jew, whom Mr. Coleridge overwhelmed with such a tor- 
rent of lofty invective — " I beg your honor's pardon ; I 
had no idea that we had such a great scholar among us." 



8 

It was only after a careful reading of the Pamphlet, 
and a recurrence to certain standard authorities whom 
we revered in our school days, — particularly a treatise on 
English grammar by a person named Lindley Murray, 
and another treatise on the Laws of Ehetoric by one Dr. 
Whately, both of which we believe still occupy a re- 
spectable position in the schools, — it was only after forti- 
fying ourselves by a reperusal of these excellent works, 
that we began to hesitate, and doubt whether there might 
not still be some chance for Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln ; 
whether all these professions of literary superiority, on 
the part of their Critic, were well founded ; and whether 
in fact it were not due to "■ American Scholarship and 
taste," that the pretensions of this writer to be classed 
as an "American Scholar" at all, should be examined 
and exposed. 

Since this line of argument seems to have escaped his 
other Eeviewers, we propose, with all diffidence, to 
undertake the task ; and if any of our remarks appear 
hypercritical, let it be remembered that we are analyzing 
the performances of an arrogant and most merciless 
Critic ; one too who has sought to cover with confusion 
and ridicule the honest and successful efforts, of one of 
our greatest Statesmen, to maintain our National dignity 
at home, and our influence abroad, under the most un- 
precedented and difficult circumstances. 

The case not only admits of, but demands the most 
inflexible application of the severest rules of criticism. 

One who deals his own blows so unsparingly on every 
side, cannot complain of a fair counter thrust. One who 
assumes to represent "American Scholarship," by that 
assumption, invites and challenges the most exact, critical 
judgment of the schools. 

If it be found, that this gay bird, when by such an 



ordeal a few fine feathers have been plucked off, shall 
prove to be but a Jackdaw after all, the fault is not ours. 
He might have flaunted and fluttered the plumage to his 
heart's content if he had been satisfied to remain silent. 
Like Jefi". Davis, all that the other birds wanted " was to 
be let alone." 

Passing now to the Pamphlet, we proceed to repro- 
duce literally a few sentences, taken at random from this 
extraordinary performance, and for writing which, any 
small boy in one of our Grammar Schools would be 
soundly flogged. 

That there may be no doubt about the accuracy of the 
extracts, we have in all cases cut them out of the printed 
pamphlet ; which an " errata" prefixed, shows to have 
been carefully revised by its author. 

" Self-glorification, a greed for literary or political 
laurels, is, at any time, a poor motive." 

Here are two nominatives, to a verb singular. No one 
will pretend that "self-glorification," a result, and "a 
greed for political or literary laurels," a motive, are con- 
vertible terms. 

The same remark applies to the following: 

" The selection as Ambassadors of Anti-Slavery Agi- 
tators, and the proscription of all the moderate men of 
the South was not accidental. 

"Was" should be "were," there being two separate 
nominatives. The sentence is also ungrammatically 
arranged. 

The critic, in another place, takes our view of "self- 
glorification" — prefixing the words "a desire of" — with 
his usual infelicity of language however. 

" And can it be possible, the reader may well ask, that 



10 

there is not injustice in imputing these discreditable reve- 
lations to the desire of self-glorification in a single man?" 

This is altogether -ungrammatical. What he means to 
say is, " the desire, in a single man," of " self-glorifica- 
tion," Again : 

" One might pause and smile, were it not the hoar of 
our country's agony and our country's shame, at such 
ineffable trash as this, thus written and thus proclaimed. 
But it is too solemn for levity P 

What is too solemn for levity ? The " trash " would 
be, according to Lindley Murray. But our critic evi- 
dently means either the "shame," or the "agony," or the 
"hour;" we cannot tell which. 

The ''awkward grammar" of the following, needs no 
comment — save that our "wonder" extends even to the 
fact of such " nonsense " being " written," by so elegant 
a scholar : 

" Mr. Clay's despatch concludes with a passage on 
which no other comment is necessary than this, that 
while we may not wonder at such vulgar nonsense being 
written, we thought there was discretion enough in the 
old clerks at what Mr. Seward somewhere describes as 
" the modest little State Department," to prevent it being 
published." 

Here is another sentence still more incorrectly worded : 

" The sorrow for the heavy personal bereavement, as 
the death of the Queen's husband seems to be, which the 
British nation feels, is modified and shared by the regret 
at the possibility of another fraternal war between them." 

What the critic means to say is, " The sorrow which 
the British nation feels for the heavy personal bereave- 
ment " &,c., &c. 

There are several inaccuracies however in the sentence, 
which cannot be corrected by a mere re-arrangement of 



11 

the words; — a " sorrow " may be " modified " possibly by 
a "regret" — but it can not be "shared" by it. The 
nation may have a share both in the sorrow and the 
regret. 

The impudence of the following paragraph in regard 
to our excellent chief magistrate, is happily relieved by 
its audacious violation of all the rules of grammar and 
good writing: 

"If we had to choose, we much prefer the homely, 
honest style of the President, no doubt characteristic of 
the man and of his social meridian, through which a 
meaning struggles for expression, to the ambitious, af- 
fected, bungling rhetoric of the Secretary." 

Here "■ we much prefer," should be " we would much 
prefer." The construction of the sentence represents the 
President's "meaning" as strugfflin;]^ "throusrh his social 
meridian " for " expression " to the " ambitious," " bung- 
ling rhetoric " of the Secretary ; which would certainly 
produce a singular colloquy. By the way " ambitious" 
and "bungling" are applied altogether incorrectly to the 
"rhetoric," The "Secretary" may be "ambitious," and 
he may be "bungling," — and his rhetoric may be " lofty" 
or "bungled," There can be no possible inherent vitality 
in the rhetoric itself, however, to warrant the use of the 
active participle "bungling," or the adjective "ambi- 
tious," in regard to it. 

What the critic means to say probably is "that he 
would prefer the homely style of the President to the 
bungled rhetoric of the Secretary, 

This misapplication of the adjective seems to be a 
chronic infirmity, since it frequently occurs in the scholar- 
like performance we are reviewing. 

For example we find "laborious rhetoric" — when it is 
manifest that although Mr. Seward may be " laborious " 



12 

his rhetoric can only be " labored " or elaborate ; the 
meaning of laborious being simply diligent or assiduous. 
We have also " patriotic criticism" ; — the critic may be 
patriotic but not the work. 

Again, the writer states, " This silence was not thought- 
less''' — meaning not unintentional — silence evidently hav- 
ing no capacity for thought. He says in another place, the 
President on some topic, was " measurably silent." Now, 
silence is an absolute state ; — as much so as death. A 
man may be occasionally silent, or generally silent, but 
he can never be " measurably silent." 

Judging from this whole performance, we should say 
that our critic has altogether very confused and indistinct 
notions on this subject of Silence — and we would suggest 
to him whether for a time at least it would not be advis- 
able for him to study it. We feel very sure that neither 
his political nor his literary reputation would in the 
interim suffer by such a course. 

This writer delights in paradoxical expressions. As 
Sydney Smith somewhere says, " He never seems hur- 
ried by his subject into obvious language." He states 
that the President " relegated foreign affairs to Mr. 
Seward." Eelegated means sent into exile. Delegated 
is probably what was intended to be said. He speaks of 
retracing "the recent past;" says, "another instalment of 
diplomatic correspondence has been given to the world," 
when every lawyer knows that an instalment must, by its 
very terms, be paid and cannot be given. He quotes 
what he is pleased to style the " vigorous language of 
Mr. Davis," that " the Confederate States looked on in 
contemptuous astonishment," &c. Astonishment means 
amazement, confusion, and cannot be qualified by such 
an adjective as contemptuous; which implies an ac- 



13 

tion of the judgment. We express a contemptuous 
opinioa for example. 

It was well said by a French writer that " adjectives 
are often the worst enemies of nouns, even though they 
agree with them in gender, number and case." 

Equally infelicitous with our critic's choice of adjec- 
tives are his metaphors. 

He says Mr. Seward 

"Imagined that the public mind of Europe had been 
poisoned by the machinations of the past, and it was in 
the power of his magic pen to conjure down the evil 
spirit." 

Dr. Whately would advise the immediate administra- 
tion of an antidote in cases of poison ; and the employ- 
ment by all means of magic to conjure down evil spirits. 
He is very emphatic, however, on the subject of " mixing 
metaphors ;" a practice universally avoided by all good 
writers, even by those who do not make any high profes- 
sion of " scholarship and taste." 

It is instructive and refreshing to find amid all this bad 
grammar and false rhetoric such decidedly cool passages 
as the following : 

"The great secret, said the poet Gray, of study, and 
he might have added of composition, is ' never to fling 
away your time in reading inferior authors, but to keep 
your mind in contact with master spirits;' in plain Eng- 
lish, to avoid low company. Mr. Seward writes like a 
man who has been reading newspapers and associatmg 
with half-educated politicians all his life, and the charac- 
ter of American scholarship suffers, by his being thought 
to be its representative." 

Or this : 

" Within a month there has been spoken in the Abbey 
Church of Westminster, by the tongue of a gentle and 
accomplished Christian minister— a master of the pure 
English language, which we cannot, if we would, re- 



14 

noLince — words on "whicli the eye has just lighted, and 
which are reproduced here, to illustrate what we are 
trying to say. It is sorrowing, sorely afflicted, not, 
according to Mr. Sumner, 'penitent England' that speaks 
in the voice of one of her gentlest, purest sons." 

These allusions show that our critic is familiar with 
the reputation, at least, which Gray and Dean Trench 
deservedly hold for correct and elegant writing. It is 
very doubtful whether the latter gentleman, so truly dis- 
tinguished, both in verse and prose, for his faultless 
Saxon English, would feel very much flattered by such 
an" awkward, ungrammatical, incomprehensible notice of 
his eminent attainments, as we have last quoted ; for in 
all the various volumes of sermons or poetry or criticism 
that Mr. Trench has published, we cannot find a single 
sentence to compare, for confusion and irregularity, with 
this memorable paragraph of his admirer; and yet there 
are fifty such in this pamphlet. 

Here is a choice bit of " vigorous and characteristic 
English" to use a favorite expression of our critic, which 
reminds us strikingly of Samuel Foote's celebrated lines: 

"So she went into the garden to get a cabbage leaf to 
make an apple pie ; at the same time a great she bear 
coming up the street popped its head into the shop ; what 
no soap ! so he died ; and she very imprudently married 
the barber," etc., etc. 

" Accordingly, we find in these dispatches, not a few 
specimens of abolition propagandism, though it is fair to 
say, not as many as we looked for from the antecedents 
of the writer, and that he very soon dropped the subject, 
on finding that foreign statesmen had no inclination to 
trouble themselves about it, and could not be seduced 
into sentimentalism on the subject of the African, at a 
time when they had other things, practically, to deal 
with." 



15 

The following paragraph is so thoroughly incorrect 
and confused that we give it without comment beyond 
calling attention to the negative at the commencement, 
which qualifies the whole sentence. 

" Neither in his Message of July, nor in that of Decem- 
ber, do we find an explanatory word — indeed, only a 
singular, meagre, and not very intelligible sentence, from 
which one would hardly infer that during the short recess 
of Congress, if not during the extra session, an elaborate 
attempt had been made to ameliorate the whole code of 
sea law, with an offer to surrender unconditionally a part 
of the war-making power recognized in the Constitution, 
and that it had failed. Yet, such these papers show to 
be the fact." 

The truth is, we may say of our critic, as Dr. Johnson 
said of a writer in his day : 

" Sir^ his parentheses are ohjectionahle ; his involved clauses 
and want of harmony. Every substance has so many acci- 
dents. To he distinct, ice must talk analytically. If we 
analyze language ive must speah of it grammatically ! if 
we ayialyze argument we must speak of it logically J'' 

Before passing from the rhetoric, to a consideration of 
the bad logic of this pamphlet, we cannot refrain from 
quoting a passage in regard to our minister to Great 
Britain. 

" What is meant by this ? Mr. Adams, when he wrote 
this letter, could not have studied carefully the history 
of the recognition of Greece by the European powers. It 
is on all fours with what is doing noio.^'' 

We respectfully beg leave to echo "What is meant by 
this" elegant expression — "on all fours with what is 
doing now." The great powers recognized the independ- 
ence of Greece. If we could only find out with certainty 
what " on all fours" in diplomacy means, we should have 
a most valuable clue to " what is doing now." Will oar 



16 

critic explain ? — Had he any experience in regard to the 
necessity of this attitude, in the course of his Oriental 
negotiations ?* 

To return to Europe, however, — 

We feel perfectly sure, for our own part, that nothing 
" is doing now" which looks, in the least, towards a recog- 
nition of the Southern Eebellion, by the great powers 
of Europe. 

Hence, we might safely conclude that if our critic be 
correct in his assertion, then " on all fours" must mean 
something highly dissimila)' ; and in fact indicates a pre- 
cise contradistinction between the subjects so felicitously 
compared. 

We fear, however, from the context that it was in- 
tended to indicate an equally precise and emphatic simi- 
larity and resemblance. 

* We believe that it is customary, in some parts of India, 
for the diplomatist to execute a profound salam before 
the reigning sovereign ; this obeisance and prostration 
being extended till the palms of the hands touch the 
ground. 

Again, the ambassadors, in many eastern countries, 
make their approach to the ineffable presence, on their 
knees. 

It has just occurred to us, that while residing near the 

court of the celestial emperor, our critic may, in his 

'diplomatic capacity, have happily combined these two 

forms of obeisance ; and thus have given to the world 

the elegant figure of diplomacy '^ on all fours' 

It would be an interesting inquiry to ascertain if he 
were joined in this attitude by the ambassadors of the 
belligerent powers. One can imagine the touching and 
impressive scene : — our critic, with his plaintive cries for 
a peaceful recognition, "on all fours," in a semi-circle 
with those growling, snarling, "dogs of war," Lord 
Elgin and Baron Gros — around Commissioner Yeh I 



17 

Let us pass now to the argument of the critic. We 
have established that his pretensions to "scholarship and 
good taste" are not altogether unquestionable. We think 
we can show that his professions of " candor and fair- 
ness" are equally to be doubted ; that his logic, in short, 
is as shallow and false as his rhetoric seems to be. 

He commences by arraigning Mr. Seward for publish- 
ing the correspondence at all. 

''That it is unusual," says he, "and on general prin- 
ciples inexpedient, with no special call on one part, and 
without reserve on the other, to lay wholesale diplomatic 
correspondence before the watching and perhaps cen- 
sorious world, and especially the confidential instruc- 
tions sent to all our Ministers, will hardly be disputed. 
There is no precedent for it, at home or abroad." 

Passing over the bad English of this sentence, we em- 
phatically deny the correctness of the assertion. In fact 
the ink had scarcely dried on this pamphlet, before a 
great Blue Book was published by the British Foreign 
Oflfice, in accordance with its yearly custom, laying before 
the world all the most delicate and detailed negotiations 
between that Government and our own. 

The letters of Lord Lyons — so highly creditable to him 
as a Statesman and as a man — are given without reserve; 
together with the most minute instructions of Earl 
Eussell to that minister, how to act under every con- 
ceivable variety of circumstances. 

In our own country, under the late administration, 
it may be remembered that a ponderous volume of 
Chinese dispatches was published, unveiling many 
delicate secrets belonging to other nations, but of which 
a "desire for self-glorification," or some other motive, 
prompted the fullest display. 

After entering this general protest however, our critic 
proceeds to enumerate some cases of pecdiar impro- 

2 



18 

priety, in tbe publication of certain letters Mr. Seward 
had written to Mr. Dayton ; and which at the time of 
writing he had instructed Mr. D. to regard as confidential. 
Observe this burst of virtuous indignation. 

" On the 22d of June, 1861, Mr. Seward wrote a des- 
patch of a most delicate nature, to Mr. Dayton, at Paris 
— at once minatory and persuasive — concluding with 
these words : " This despatch is strictly confidential." 
So Mr. Dayton had a right to think it would be, and one 
may imagine his surprise to find it so soon in print, 
without any call from Congress, or any public exigency. 
The assurance that a letter is confidential, even in private 
correspondence, is a pledge which cannot be withdrawn 
but by mutual consent." 

" The remark applies with greater force to the incul- 
patory despatch of the 6th of July, 1861, in which he 
says to Mr. Dayton : " This paper is, in one sense, a con- 
versation merely, between yourself and us. It is not to 
he made public^ Yet it, too, is spread before the world." 

Now let us for a moment consider the force and ten- 
dency of this reasoning — a merchant for example sends 
his clerk to travel on the business of the house, and 
gives him minute and definite instructions — informing 
him that he must consider these as strictly confidential. 

A Minister of State sends an Ambassador abroad on 
business of the State and gives him detailed and confi- 
dential instructions. 

Both messengers perform their duty ; and a time arrives 
when their principals, respectively, deem that the interests, 
confided to these servants, will be best promoted by a 
publication of the previously confidential instructions 
under which they had acted. 

Now, according to the shallow, special pleading of this 
pamphleteer, they would be debarred from doing so, by 
having once placed an injunction of secresy upon their 
subordinate agents ; and the laws of honor, and of ordi- 



19 

nary intercourse among gentlemen are invoked. Tlie 
sophistry needs no further exposure. 

The following extract is remarkable, on several ac- 
counts; firstly, for a mis-quotation of the text; secondly, 
for the ungrammatical and absurd construction of the 
sentence ; and thirdly, for the audacious insult to " our 
readers" contained in the last line : 

" And to the whole record, ending as we think it does, 
in the realization of Mr. Burke's })hilosophy, that the 
most terrible of revolutions is one luhich hreahs a proud 
natiovLS hearty in a spirit of genuine and rational loyalty, 
we invite the attention of our readers. Philip, we are 
inclined to hope, is fast becoming sober, and will listen." 

Mr. Burke's remark was precisely the reverse of this. 
He says : 

"To a people who once have been proud and. great, 
and great because they were proud, a change in the 
national spirit, is the most terrible of all revolutions." 

The meanina: of the great Euo;lish statesman is obvious. 
A decadence of the national spirit, a gradual decay of 
their pride and their love of independence on the part of 
a great people are indeed the evidences of a sad revolu- 
tion ; but it suits this pamphleteer to represent Mr. Seward 
as having ruthlessly "broken a proud nation's heart." 
" Mr. Burke's philosophy" therefore, is modified to accom- 
modate this hypothesis. It is consoling to notice that the 
"proud nation's heart," according to grammatical con- 
struction, is broken " in a spirit of genuine and rational 
loyalty." 

Among all the memorable features of this paragraph, 
however, the last line deserves, we think, especial pre- 
eminence ; "We invite the attention of our readers. 
Philip is fast becoming sober and will listen." 

There is nothing certainly to be found in all the 
records of Mr. Seward's diplomacy, so conciliating at the 



20 

outset as this ; nothing better calculated to ensure a 
tranquil and favorable reception of what is to follow. 

The idea of addressing such an insult to his readers, is 
so shocking, that, to use our critic's language on another 
occasion, " We prefer to take refuge in the awkward 
grammar and bungling rhetoric" of the writer, and to 
assume that he meant to apply the charge of inebriety 
to the nation; of whom he was speaking just before. 

Another important instance of mis-quotation appears 
in the following sentence, which he professes to "quote 
literally" from Mr. Seward's instructions to our minister 
at Vienna. Our critic is describino; the effect on the 
Austrian minister at Washington, of this publication and 
says : 

" He now has to learn from the strange publication 
before us, and especially from the following sentence, 
quoted literally, what sort of a ricketty government he 
represents, and that while our country is filled with 
Magyars, and Jews, and Germans, every one is ashamed 
to admit that he is an Austrian. 

Mr. Seward said no such thing. He was speaking not 
of the "ricketty government of Austria," but of its varied 
population. Here are his words, which every one knows 
to be literally true. 

"We meet everywhere here, in town and country, 
Italians, Hungarians, Poles, Magyars, Jews and Germans, 
but no one has ever seen a confessed Austrian amongst 
us." 

The remark will bear an interpretation complimentary 
to Austria — ; but we suppose Mr. Seward simply inten- 
ded to state a fact, without conveying thereby either a 
compliment or an insult, and so we leave it. 

Our readers however will have, from these few in- 
stances, which might be greatly multiplied, an idea of 



21 



" the spirit of candor and fairness'' in which the pamphlet 
has been written. 

Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Truth, all the acknowl- 
edged rules of language, and we might add of honor m 
criticism, are over-ridden or set aside by this reckless 
writer. His one object seems to be to attack Mr. Seward 
and to hold up to ridicule the successful foreign diplo- 
macy of our State Department. 

Before conclusion let us glance for a moment, at the 
evidences of party spirit; and of a total ivant of true 
public spirit and loyalty, which abound in this pamphlet. 
As stated in the introduction, we have nothing to do 
with our critic's ancestry, or with his own personal 
history in past times. We put aside, therefore, all con- 
sideration of the wonderful agility with which he leaped 
over the ring, and landed securely amidst a host of men 
and principles which he had been combatting during a 
lono- life; but which he suddenly espouses and defends, 
with all the zeal and bitterness of a new convert. The 
mission to China explains, and we suppose, with pro- 
fessed politicians, justifies all this. 

We also pass over, for the present at least, cer am 
public speeches made by this gentleman, little more than 
a year since, in which he advocated entirely the cause of 
the South ; and poured out a torrent of merciless invective 
against the principles of the incoming adninustration ; 
extending Ms remarks even to personal ridicule of its 

Chief. ,, 1 , 

The "guns of Fort Moultrie," our critic says, "awakened 
Mr Seward and the nation from their dream of peace. 
The ^uns of Fort Sumter and their tremendous rever- 
beratron throughout the length and breadth of the land, 
say we, silenced in a moment all traitors ; and hushed, for 
a time at least, the faintest mutterings of treason. _ 
It was wonderful to observe the effect of this music. 



Ai 



22 

We read that — 

"Orplaeus' lute was strung with poet's sinews, 
Whose goklen touch coukl soften steel and stones, 
Make tigers tame, and huge Leviathans 
Forsake unsounded deeps, to dance on sands." 

Those who remember the marvellous softening of the 
pro Slavery Democratic hearty to all the impressions 
that an exasperated public sentiment insisted on its forth- 
with receiving, last April ; the rapidity with which these 
fierce "tigers" were "tamed;" and the lively " dance" 
that many "huge Leviathans" of party were obliged to 
lead at the bidding of an awakened people, will be able 
to comprehend and realize, in some measure, the magic 
power of Orpheus. 

Let all that pass. But we do not at all like the follow- 
ing sentiment of our critic : 

" If, by any method of war, the Government can be 
restored to its condition before this dreadful strife began, 
let us pray for its early consummation, with the least 
possible bloodshed, and with every merciful appliance 
of pardon and amnesty, and reconciliation, that can be 
devised ; and if it cannot — if peace and separation be 
inevitable — let us hope for the coming man amongst 
ourselves, who shall have mental and moral elevation to 
see the reality soonest, and not shrink from its recogni- 
tion ; who will bend all the energies of the great mind, 
(for such must be his,) to let the separation be made with- 
out further convulsion or more ghastly scars." 

This is not the medicine for the hour. It smacks too 
strongly of the poisonous infusions of Jeff. Davis, and 
Stephens, and Mason, and Yancey, and Slidell, but one 
short year ago. They all said precisely this. What does 
the writer mean? He knows, and all the world knows, 
that there is no possibility of the North and the West 
consenting to the disruption of this Union. They will 
not, even for a moment, discuss such an absurdity. 

LofC. 



23 

We tliink, that by a full consideration and study of 
this paragraph, and other similar expressions, scattered 
throughout the pamphlet, the true animus of this attack 
on Mr. Seward may be be-tter understood. 

When we see such an atrocious sentiment suggested 
as this : 

" On the judgment and action of other nations, our 
future may depend, and as to what that future can or 
ought to be, wise and patriotic, and brave, and loyal 
men may widely differ," 

We begin to suspect that the pamphleteer may pos- 
sibly represent other interests than those of his country ; 
and in proportion to the success of Mr. Seward in 
defeating foreign intrigue, may he necessarily be ex- 
posed to the animadversions of this writer. 

Whether this suspicion be well or ill founded, we be- 
lieve that the bare suggestion of such a foreign inter- 
ference as is here threatened, will rally round our Gov- 
ernment and its able defenders, every true loyal national 
heart. 

The administration of that unhappy Old Man, whose 
imbecility and complicity with treason, have plunged the 
country into this fearful struggle, is now a thing of the 
past. 

The cool judgment of History Avill soon be passed 
upon the whole question ; and its verdict be recorded for, 
or against, the various actors in this strange scene. 

It will be well for this arrogant pamphleteer if he be 
not arraigned before that tribunal, as one of the principal 
advisers of the fatal policy which has led to such deplora- 
ble results. 

He was certainly one of the most intimate confidants 
of Mr. Buchanan and up to the latest moment one of the 



24 

most strenuous and bitter advocates of all his public 
measures. 

His course since then has been far from satisfactory ; 
and this pamphlet will constitute no very strong record 
in his favor. 



FINIS. 



